Metanet Forums

Let's talk about this age-old subject. Who do you think would win in a fight?

Let's assume that it's a 1v1 fight in a wide open area and both the Knight and the Samurai are armed and armored with their traditional weaponry, and they are both extremely competent with their own fighting styles.

Who do you think would win in a fight to the death? Personally i think that it's a pretty even fight and i can see how either side would win, but i am leaning towards Knights because of their heavy armoring and great stamina.

Dude, samurais would pwn a knight anytime. It's like a proven fact :P

I'm a Knight person.

Medieval > Japan

I'd go with Samurai due to their greater skill will warcraft. Also, they could tire the knight out in his clunky army and go in for the kill.

Samurai. They had sharp blades.

Once the knight was worn out,he could just stab right through the armor,it's not like it is an inch thick..

Samurais. Dudes with great skills and looks like ninjas.

I'd have to say the samurai. The samurai would be more patient and tactical with his techniques, giving him the advantage.

SlappyMcGee wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Warrior

Too bad they didn't do a Knights / Samurai fight :/

PALEMOON wrote:

SlappyMcGee wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Warrior

Too bad they didn't do a Knights / Samurai fight :/

No, but they did a Samurai vs. Viking (IIRC) fight. That was enough to sway me towards choosing Samurai.

A viking can own the crud outta a samurai.

Samurais are my least favorite type of warriors. :/

Knights have the following:
Shield
Dragon
Round Table
Monty Python
Merlin
Holy Grail
Kingdom

Samurai? Psshhawww.

Knights. Obviously.

Flight wrote:A viking can own the crud outta a samurai.

Samurais are my least favorite type of warriors. :/

Knights have the following:
Shield
Dragon
Round Table
Monty Python
Merlin
Holy Grail
Kingdom

Samurai? Psshhawww.

PALEMOON wrote:Let's assume that it's a 1v1 fight in a wide open area and both the Knight and the Samurai are armed and armored with their traditional weaponry, and they are both extremely competent with their own fighting styles.

In any case, samurais have Tom Cruise.

I'll ask the same question I ask every time one of these questions come up:
Are we talking about legendary knights and samurai, or actual knights and samurai?

If we're talking about actual, historical knights and samurai, then it'd go to samurai hands-down. Historically, knights were bullshit. There was no style whatsoever to how they fought. They literally just walked onto the field and clonked each other across the breastplate with claymores until one of them fell over from exhaustion. After falling from their horses, they'd survive a few minutes, tops, before they collapsed from under the weight of their armor and weapons, and only survived because people mistook their utter inability to get back on their feet for them being dead. Samurai needed fucking skills to survive, and they had those aplenty. They were also used to killing armored opponents, so knights would be exactly the sort of opponents they are trained to fight.
Plus, we live in America, where the popular opinion is that anything that Wapan (not a typo) does is infinitely superior to its Western equivalent.

If we're talking about knights and samurai from legend, then we have something like a Goku vs Superman fight. Samurai of Legend battled entire armies by themselves, and even battled abstract nouns at times, whereas the power of a knight scaled up to whatever he was fighting. So a legendary samurai is immensely powerful and can conquer death (because he stole the chrysanthemum from the jade dragon empress in the lilypond of wisdom, or whatever bullshit he did), whereas a legendary knight would be wearing the Holy Grail in one of those beer hats, besides being capable of killing multiple dragons in a given outing. Neither can die, and neither tires. I suppose it might come to whoever has more trump cards... the knight would win if he has a larger set of motivating factors like princesses to be rescued or to win the affections of, whereas the samurai's would be focused on preserving his honor, his father's or other ancestor's honor, or recovering the same.
If the setting is an anime, the knight is fucked.

I was indeed talking about actual Samurais.

Samurai's win, any situation.

Tsukatu wrote:I'll ask the same question I ask every time one of these questions come up:
Are we talking about legendary knights and samurai, or actual knights and samurai?

If we're talking about actual, historical knights and samurai, then it'd go to samurai hands-down. Historically, knights were bullshit. There was no style whatsoever to how they fought. They literally just walked onto the field and clonked each other across the breastplate with claymores until one of them fell over from exhaustion. After falling from their horses, they'd survive a few minutes, tops, before they collapsed from under the weight of their armor and weapons, and only survived because people mistook their utter inability to get back on their feet for them being dead. Samurai needed fucking skills to survive, and they had those aplenty. They were also used to killing armored opponents, so knights would be exactly the sort of opponents they are trained to fight.
Plus, we live in America, where the popular opinion is that anything that Wapan (not a typo) does is infinitely superior to its Western equivalent.

If we're talking about knights and samurai from legend, then we have something like a Goku vs Superman fight. Samurai of Legend battled entire armies by themselves, and even battled abstract nouns at times, whereas the power of a knight scaled up to whatever he was fighting. So a legendary samurai is immensely powerful and can conquer death (because he stole the chrysanthemum from the jade dragon empress in the lilypond of wisdom, or whatever bullshit he did), whereas a legendary knight would be wearing the Holy Grail in one of those beer hats, besides being capable of killing multiple dragons in a given outing. Neither can die, and neither tires. I suppose it might come to whoever has more trump cards... the knight would win if he has a larger set of motivating factors like princesses to be rescued or to win the affections of, whereas the samurai's would be focused on preserving his honor, his father's or other ancestor's honor, or recovering the same.
If the setting is an anime, the knight is fucked.

Suki wins.

Tsukatu wrote:I'll ask the same question I ask every time one of these questions come up:
Are we talking about legendary knights and samurai, or actual knights and samurai?

If we're talking about actual, historical knights and samurai, then it'd go to samurai hands-down. Historically, knights were bullshit. There was no style whatsoever to how they fought. They literally just walked onto the field and clonked each other across the breastplate with claymores until one of them fell over from exhaustion. After falling from their horses, they'd survive a few minutes, tops, before they collapsed from under the weight of their armor and weapons, and only survived because people mistook their utter inability to get back on their feet for them being dead. Samurai needed fucking skills to survive, and they had those aplenty. They were also used to killing armored opponents, so knights would be exactly the sort of opponents they are trained to fight.
Plus, we live in America, where the popular opinion is that anything that Wapan (not a typo) does is infinitely superior to its Western equivalent.

If we're talking about knights and samurai from legend, then we have something like a Goku vs Superman fight. Samurai of Legend battled entire armies by themselves, and even battled abstract nouns at times, whereas the power of a knight scaled up to whatever he was fighting. So a legendary samurai is immensely powerful and can conquer death (because he stole the chrysanthemum from the jade dragon empress in the lilypond of wisdom, or whatever bullshit he did), whereas a legendary knight would be wearing the Holy Grail in one of those beer hats, besides being capable of killing multiple dragons in a given outing. Neither can die, and neither tires. I suppose it might come to whoever has more trump cards... the knight would win if he has a larger set of motivating factors like princesses to be rescued or to win the affections of, whereas the samurai's would be focused on preserving his honor, his father's or other ancestor's honor, or recovering the same.
If the setting is an anime, the knight is fucked.

I agree with this assessment of the world.

Ninja > samurai + knight

Destiny wrote:Ninja > samurai + knight

That's spam
If you had said

A Samurai/knight would beat a Samurai/knight, but a ninja would win against both combined.

then that would be fine, anything would be fine after you stated your opinion that was relevant to the topic as long as it won't cause people to derail...

jinxed_07 wrote:

Destiny wrote:Ninja > samurai + knight

That's spam
If you had said

A Samurai/knight would beat a Samurai/knight, but a ninja would win against both combined.

then that would be fine, anything would be fine after you stated your opinion that was relevant to the topic as long as it won't cause people to derail...

First of all, no it wasn't. Deviating from the original topic is perfectly acceptable, as long as it's realtively interesting/amusing and vaguely related to the subject, and his post satisfied both of these requirements in me eyes.

Secondly, even if it was spam, which it isn't, you don't have any pie either, so I don't know why you think you have the right to suddenly accuse others of spamming whilst doing so yourself.

Thirdly, I voted for the knight, but Suki's post has since brought me over to the samurai's side.

Samurais have no class.


Knights have chivalry.

SlappyMcGee wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Warrior

I had much fun with that link. Thanks.

Flight wrote:Samurais have no class.


Knights have chivalry.

Actually,samurai's also had a strict code and were perfectionist bodyguards,so how can you say they don't have class

cheesemonger wrote:Secondly, even if it was spam, which it isn't, you don't have any pie either, so I don't know why you think you have the right to suddenly accuse others of spamming whilst doing so yourself.

I ALREADY posted my opinion,and I was correcting someone else